Trying to sort the wheat from the chaff I'm busily beavering my way through 24-xx lenses that satisfy the hunger for image-quality of the worlds highest MP full-frame DSLR: The Nikon D800.After completing my Tamron SP 24-70/2.8 Di VC USD review I've now done the same for Nikon's equivalent zoom. Just a few more days for me to finalize the write-up and for Gordon to review and publish it.As was to be expected the Nikon puts in a very good performance although you'll see that there are some weak points too. But one should not forget that this still is a zoom-lens and that the 36MP of a D800 are putting incredible stress on every lens.

As usual this thread is for your comments, questions and own experiences with this lens.----P.S.: The old thread is here. I've locked it.

Given that this lense has no VR, and the option of the recently released Nikkor AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5G VR, do you think there is a huge difference between these two Nikkor lenses? Certainly the VR alone is a significant + factor.

I would need a f2.8 but with the latter having VR it might be better choosing this instead.

You're lucky, Colin: My direct shootout between the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, the Nikon 24-70/2.8G and the Nikon 24-85/3.5-4.5G VR is just in the final rounds of editing! So expect to have all your questions answered in a few days.Until then you have to compare the results from my individual reviews yourself and draw your own conclusions regarding features, performance and price.

I have read the reviews on the Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC, Nikon 24-70/2.8G and 24-85/3.5-4.5G VR.

It seems a mixed bag of results, I don`t know what I would choose so far. I'm unsure about the Tamron, the absense of VR is certainly an annoyance, but at the back of my head I am thinking should I go for the 24-70/2.8G anyway or the 24-85 as it is a viable option it seems.

I read earlier if you can shoot and avoid camera shake well the non VR is fine, but there can`t be to many individuals who can avoid camera shake, albeit a bit, I don`t know if I could, as for the 24-70/2.8G lense at 70mm

I'll be glad for advice that help me to decide what to get.I'm not a professional shooter, but love to have a best possible staff.So I have two options: d600 or d7100, here is some problem with a lens choosing: Nikon not have a vr with 2.8 lens and with d7100 I'll go to loose wide angle.For d7100 does't exists (may be I'm wrong) 2.8 proper lens. So I'm really don't know what to do....Does it really worth for me goes for the full frame or get a d7100 and sleep with a calm , but in this case I need an advice for the best lens.More than that I 'd like to take a tamron lens but one of my friends told me that it can be some problem with flash using in a dark places, because of some manufactor "trick" against third part lens, although he use a tamron with canon, may be it does't exists with a Nikon one (he check the issue in the lab).Sorry for the long letter and hope I put my things clear.Thank You and thank You for the wonderful reviews.

This is the ultimate question about going full-frame or chosing DX-format bodies.The main differences: full-frame is in the end more expensive, larger & heavier, collects 1 stop more light and allows for shallower dof.If you don't want/need that, go DX.

I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC on my d7000. And have had pretty terrible focus shift issues. After sending the lens to tamron and getting it back, the issues have gotten even worse... other than that the lens was a blast, sharp: fast focusing, good range, good build quality. i can only recommend this lens if you manage to find a lens that you can try before you buy.but with the recent announcement of yet another consumer grade dx lens from nikon, i wonder if sticking to DX is worth it... there seems to be less and less support for a bit higher range lenses. all they do is put out one super zoom and/or plastic mount lens after another. The way things are now i'd rather go fx. if you can afford it.